IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Gurbachan Singh And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S-4534-SB-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Conviction - Offences under Sections 307, 323, 148, and 149 of the IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a scuffle where the accused were charged with offences under Sections 307, 323, 148, and 149 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of 9 witnesses, while the accused claimed trial and presented 4 defense witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witness's testimony was credible and supported by medical evidence. However, it also noted a delay in lodging the FIR and raised concerns about the investigation's fairness. The court ultimately concluded that the accused had validly exercised the right of private defence and allowed the appeal, quashing the verdict of conviction and setting the accused at liberty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the validity of the accused's exercise of the right of private defence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the credibility of witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused's valid exercise of the right of private defence.
Final Decision: The verdict of conviction and consequent sentences were quashed, and the accused were set at liberty. Fine amounts, if deposited, were to be refunded, and the weapons of offence were ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the period of limitation.
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the verdict of conviction, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, upon, Sessions Case No.33. The impugned verdict of conviction was drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (supra) vis-a-vis charges drawn against the accused for offences constituted under Sections 307, 323, 148, and, under Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, on 15.11.2017, he proceeded to impose upon the convicts, the hereinafter extracted sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine.
Convict Gurbachan Singh | Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine to further RI for |
307 IPC | 7 years | Rs.10000/- | Six months | |
323/149 IPC | 1 Year | Rs.500/- | One month | |
148 IPC | 2 Years | Rs.1000/- | Two months |
Convict Darshan Singh | Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine to further RI for |
307/149 IPC | 7 years | Rs.10000/- | Six months | |
323/149 IPC | 1 Year | Rs.500/- | One month | |
148 IPC | 2 Years | Rs.1000/- | Two months |
Convict Balbir Singh | Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine to further RI for |
307/149 IPC | 7 years | Rs.10000/- | Six months | |
323 IPC | 1 Year | Rs.500/- | One month | |
148 IPC | 2 Years | Rs.1000/- | Two months |
Convict Dharamjit Singh | Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine to further RI for |
307/149 IPC | 7 years | Rs.10000/- | Six months | |
323/149 IPC | 1 Year | Rs.500/- | One month | |
148 IPC | 2 Years | Rs.1000/- | Two months |
Convict Kashmir Singh | Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine to further RI for |
307/149 IPC | 7 years | Rs.10000/- | Six months | |
323/149 IPC | 1 Year | Rs.500/- | One month | |
148 IPC | 2 Years | Rs.1000/- | Two months |
3. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, and, the period spent by the convicts in jail was ordered to be set off from the period of the above impugned substantive sentence of imprisonment, as, became imposed upon each of them. The afore drawn order of sentence, is also challenged by the convicts, through their rearing the instant appeal before this Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that as per prosecution story, FIR was registered against the accused on the statement of complainant Karamjit Singh, wherein, he has stated that he is resident of village Bakarwala. On 04.04.2014, he alongwith his younger brother Kuldeep Singh had gone for a walk at about 8 pm after taking meals. When they had reached on phirni of village, which is metaled road, near house of Darshan Singh son of Arjan Singh, they found that Darshan Singh son of Arjan Singh, Gurbachan Singh son of Darshan Singh and Kashmir Singh son of Arjan Singh, all residents of village Bakarwala were present there and chatting. Dog of Kashmir Singh was standing near them. Dog had tried to bite them. He had picked up a brick bat and thrown it towards the dog. Aforesaid persons started abusing him. His brother Kuldeep Singh had taken him to house saying that they are not to quarrel. Thereafter, they had gone for a walk and returned after about ten minutes. When they were reached near the house of Darshan Singh, they had seen Darshan Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Dharampreet Singh, Balbir Singh and Kashmir Singh were standing. Balbir Singh was armed with sword, Gurbachan Singh was armed with small toki, Kashmir Singh and Darshan Singh were armed with sticks and Dharampreet Singh was empty handed. On seeking them, Dharampreet Singh raised a lalkara that they should not be spared because they had given a brick bat blow to their dog. They had started abusing them. Gurbachan Singh had given a toki blow with an intention to kill him, which had rested in the middle of the head. Kashmir Singh had given a dang blow on his person and in order to avoid said blow, he had raised his right hand and dang hit on fingers of his hand. Balbir Singh and Darshan Singh had caught hold Kuldeep Singh from his waist and gave him fist blows. Then, they raised a alarm 'Mar Dita Mar Dita'. People from neighbourhood, his wife Parwinder Kaur and uncle MohanS
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the accused's exercise of the right of private defence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of probative value in witness testimonies, the validity of identification processes, and the need for consistent and credible eviden....
The right to self-defense is limited by the necessity of proportionality and cannot be claimed when the defender has superior numbers and uses lethal force.
The credibility of ocular witnesses, the recovery of incriminatory items, and medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The court affirmed that the appellants exceeded their right of private defence due to their superior strength and armed status, justifying the conviction.
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Convict's involvement was upheld despite witness inconsistencies; acquittal overruled due to insufficient evidence evaluation by the trial court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.